COMMENTARY Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: The bursting of a bubble? Paul Mellars Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, United Kingdom or the past 40 y, the range of the Châtelperronian industries themselves, grooved and perforated animal and in particular on their demonstrably F teeth, mammoth-ivory rings, and strong links with the final Mousterian other unmistakably “decorative” technologies of western France belonging or “ornamental” items discovered during to the so-called “Mousterian of Acheulian the excavations in the Châtelperronian tradition” group, for which the direct levels in the cave of Grotte du Renne in Neanderthal associations have never been north central France (1–4) (Fig. 1) have seriously contested (22). Even without the played a pivotal role in discussions of Fig. 1. Grooved and perforated “personal orna- support of the disputed skeletal remains the European Neanderthal populations, ments” and ivory ring from the Châtelperronian from the Châtelperronian levels at both suggesting that these populations were levels at the Grotte du Renne, France. [Repro- the Grotte du Renne and Saint-Césaire, actively engaged in a range of highly duced with permission from Randall White, New few authors now dispute that the makers York University, New York.] “symbolic” behaviors, which had pre- of the Châtelperronian industry in western viously been generally regarded as cultur- Europe were indeed the direct descend- ally and behaviorally diagnostic of the ern populations in western Europe (5–7, ants of the immediately preceding Homo sapiens Neanderthal populations, who are known earliest populations, who 15–19). Although for technical and ad- to have occupied effectively all regions of are known to have dispersed rapidly across ministrative reasons it was not possible to Europe (from their ultimately African Europe for the preceding 200,000 to secure any dates directly on the orna- origins) between ca. 45,000 and 35,000 y 250,000 y (7, 10–12, 17–24). mental items themselves, the results raise ago (5–9). Despite being effectively unique The question of whether the (final the strong possibility—if not probability— in the archaeological records of the Neanderthal) Châtelperronian popula- that they were stratigraphically intrusive European Neanderthals, the finds have tions ever manufactured the hauntingly into the Châtelperronian deposits from often been taken to demonstrate that the “modern”-looking animal-tooth pendants, these overlying Proto-Aurignacian levels— Neanderthals possessed highly symbolic either at the Grotte du Renne or at any an option already suggested by a number cultural and cognitive capacities (including other sites in western Europe, is perhaps of earlier workers on stratigraphic grounds language) closely similar if not identical to more debatable. The only other claims for those of the ensuing “modern” human (2). One could perhaps raise similar animal-tooth pendants (or any similar populations (10–13). questions as to the provenance of some of decorative items) in association with ap- The PNAS article by Higham et al. (14) the diagnostically Neanderthal skeletal proximately 40 known Châtelperronian has now thrown substantial doubt on these remains (including 29 teeth and a tempo- sites in France and northern Spain come anatomical and cultural associations at the ral bone) recovered from the same Châ- from the site of Quinçay (2, 10, 24), where Grotte du Renne site, based on an in- telperronian levels (3, 4), but on the basis [as Higham et al. (14) point out] the as- tensive campaign of radiocarbon acceler- of the dated radiocarbon samples, there is sociated archaeological and stratigraphic ator dating measurements by the highly much less evidence for intermixture of evidence has never been adequately pub- “ respected Oxford Radiocarbon Accelera- material from the underlying Mouste- lished, and where the objects in question ” tor Unit. These measurements demon- rian levels in the sequence (with the ex- might again be intrusive from the overlying ± strate that the archaeological and faunal ception of a single date of 48,700 3,600 y levels on the site. On a more positive note, material originally recovered from the B.P.), which makes the doubts sometimes perhaps, the Oxford team did succeed in critical (presumed final Neanderthal) raised as to the provenance of the remains securing clear radiocarbon measurements Châtelperronian levels span an extraordi- (19) much less plausible on both strati- on two morphologically simple but un- narily wide range of ages (ranging between graphic and radiocarbon grounds. mistakably shaped bone awls from the ca. 49,000 and 21,000 y B.P. in radiocar- Exactly what implications these results Châtelperronian levels at Grotte du bon terms), which can only be explained by have for our current perceptions of the Renne, which demonstrate unambiguously a substantial degree of stratigraphic mixing nature of any social or cultural relation- that the Châtelperronian groups were of materials from several adjacent ar- ships between the final Neanderthal pop- involved in the manufacture of these chaeological levels that occurred either ulations of western Europe and the simple, shaped bone tools from at least during the original excavations on the site incoming anatomically modern human ca. 37,000 y B.P. onward, arguably making in the 1950s or as a result of earlier geo- populations is, perhaps, more open to these tools the earliest clear evidence for logical or human disturbance of the de- debate. As several authors have pointed systematically shaped bone tool manu- posits. As the dates themselves reveal, out (20–23), the case for thinking that facture in western Europe, and appar- a significant proportion of the newly dated the highly distinctive Châtelperronian in- ently surpassing anything demonstrably bone samples from these critical Châ- dustries were manufactured by the final produced by the preceding Neander- telperronian levels almost certainly derive Neanderthal populations in western thals (11, 12). from the immediately overlying “Proto- Europe hinges not only on the Neander- Aurignacian” level on the site, now re- thal skeletal remains recovered from the liably dated by the new radiocarbon Grotte du Renne (and those from the Author contributions: P.M. wrote the paper. measurements to approximately 35,000 y equally contested site of Saint-Césaire in The author declares no conflict of interest. B.P., and generally agreed to be the southwestern France), but also on several See companion article on page 20234. product of the earliest anatomically mod- of the specific archaeological features of E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014588107 PNAS | November 23, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 47 | 20147–20148 Downloaded by guest on September 29, 2021 In the light of all this new evidence, the from the Grotte du Renne is that the sin- language (25). One could equally ask in debates over the cultural capacities of the gle most impressive and hitherto widely this context why a population that had late Neanderthal populations in Europe, cited pillar of evidence for the presence of become so thoroughly and successfully and their social and cultural interactions complex “symbolic” behavior among the “adapted” to the glacial conditions of with the incoming anatomically modern late Neanderthal populations in Europe Europe over a span of more than 200,000 y populations, will no doubt rumble on. Two has now effectively collapsed. Whether any should have succumbed so rapidly (within scenarios have been postulated in the further evidence of advanced, explicitly a period of a few thousand years) to de- fi earlier literature. The rst is that the late mographic competition from the newly Neanderthal populations across Europe Evidence for the presence arrived modern human populations, who could conceivably have independently had developed all of their biological, “invented” several features of distinctively of complex “symbolic” technological, and other cultural adapta- “modern” human culture—including the tions in the vastly different environments production of both highly shaped bone behavior among the tools and explicitly “symbolic” ornamental of sub-Saharan Africa (8, 9). If the evolu- items—without any connection or cultural late Neanderthal tionary lineages that led to the Neander- input from the incoming modern human thal populations in Europe and the populations, who are known to have been populations in Europe anatomically and genetically modern dispersing progressively across Europe at (H. sapiens) populations in Africa initially precisely the same time as the allegedly has now effectively diverged at least 350,000 y ago [as all of “independent” Neanderthal innovations the recent genetic evidence strongly sug- (10–13), a scenario that has been de- collapsed. gests (8, 9)], this would amount cumula- scribed elsewhere as a seemingly “impos- tively to at least 700,000 y of separate sible coincidence” (23). The second evolutionary development in the two scenario is that certain features of dis- symbolic behavior of this kind can be re- regions—arguably providing ample time tinctively modern human culture and liably claimed from any other Neanderthal for significantly different cognitive and technology could simply have been dis- sites in Europe is still a matter of debate other biological adaptations and associ- persed by interpopulation cultural con- (13, 21). One crucial question that must ated genetic mutations to have occurred tacts